In all the talk about certification of graduate archival programs, we have had little or no discussion about the certification of individual archivists offered by the Academy of Certified Archivists.
Over the years, I have talked or emailed with many archivists who either support certification of do not. Those who do not, in my experience, are very vocal and almost venomous in their rejection of the need for individual archivists to undergo certification.
I became a certified archivist as a personal challenge, to see if I could do it. Once I did, I was proud of myself and being able to put the two "CA" letters after my name. But recently I have come to realize that in itself may be a way to showcase my arrogance, a way to say "nanny nanny nanny" to someone, probably someone from my past who doubted me, maybe even myself!
I see that not all certified archivists use the "CA" designation, but these are archivists who are in a stable job and close to retirement. Those of us early in our careers use it religiously, it seems.
More and more employers are putting as either required or preferred qualifications the certified archivist designation. But one has to ask, to be intellectually fair, whether this qualification is there by peer pressure, because the institution believes a certified archivist can do better or knows more than one who is not? I wonder how many non-certified archivists apply for jobs that say they require the qualification and how many of these are offered the job?
One archivist I respect is totally against certification, saying her MLS and archives experience (about 7 years) is more than enough to show she is qualified to be an archivist. I always end up asking her, "is qualification to be an archivist the only benefit of archivist certification"?
Another archivist has an MS in Information Studies (or something like that) from a top school and insists that he does not need certification because he has already proven he knows his stuff.
Is reading a bunch of books and articles and then passing a multiple-choice examination, oftentimes with scores that would give one a "C" or "D" grade in the classroom, adequate to show one's qualifications? How much does the CA count for employers or for search committees?
I am very interested in hearing all of your comments on certification, yeah or nay. This is a discussion I have wanted to have for a long time. Now is the time.
Posts
You Suck, Jon Stewart
3 hours ago
6 comments:
(continued from previous...) An MLS and seven years of experience may be “more than enough” to show that you are qualified to be an archivist, assuming your employer recognizes the value. But Certification is not just about being a qualified archivist to an employer. It’s about personal growth and continuing education. I direct critics to the ACA Role Delineation Statement that defines the knowledge and skills necessary for archival work. By reviewing and strengthening our RDS and the domains of knowledge regularly, the ACA stays current with changing archival developments. I had eight years of professional experience at the time I took the test, and yet while studying for the exam, I re-learned about areas I hadn’t been practicing while employed. I re-read texts I hadn’t looked at since school. When I received my results, my strengths and weaknesses within the domains were clearly evident. Since that time I have been able to build on those strengths and dedicate continuing education opportunities to my weaker areas.
Having to re-certify by petition or exam assures Certified Archivists that they will not stagnate in their profession. Full-time employment is only 40 points on a 100 point petition. Remaining certified requires one to put a little thought into their activities within the profession as a whole. Continuing education, participation and attendance at local, regional, or national meetings, service to local, regional, or national organizations, and publishing about or related to the archives profession are all recognized ways of dedicating yourself to continued growth and contribution within the profession. For those in academia, consider it a post-tenure review.
I encourage the critics and those on-the-fence about certification to attend the ACA at 20: The Evolution, Challenges, and Future of Certification session at SAA in Austin on Friday, August 14 at 10 a.m. I’m sure the presentation will be informative and all four scheduled speakers are enthusiastic supporters who would likely be willing to engage with you.
(In the interest of disclosure, I am presently the elected ACA Secretary. My comments are entirely my own and not as a representative of the ACA board.)
Russell, I have to disagree with you about the CA being a showcase of arrogance. Using your CA designation is not any more arrogant than someone using their Ph.D. designation. Becoming a CA and earning the right to use the initials in your signature is a mark of distinction.
Are there good archivists out there who are not Certified, unarguably. But is every applicant with an MLS/MLIS degree a qualified Archivist? No. Is every person with a History degree a qualified Archivist? No. In the absence of the elusive accredited Master of Archival Science program, the CA is one credential employers can use to assure themselves that the applicant is well-trained and well-versed in archival knowledge.
If you were hiring a professional engineer, wouldn’t you give more credit to the applicant who has a PE. designation? How about an attorney. You check to be sure they are licensed to practice in your state. For those employers who don’t know the difference between a “librarian” and an “archivist”, the CA offers them another level of measurement. The qualification isn’t there by “peer pressure”. It’s there because it’s reassuring to know you’re hiring someone who has passed the ACA’s rigorous standards, including education and experience.
For my current job I was a non-CA who applied to a position that required CA. After a few months, they reposted the position with CA as preferred, and I landed an interview and the job. After a year becoming acclimated to the job, I signed up for the CA exam. I did this because I recognized that my employer identified CA as a valuable tool in vetting applicants and I wanted to prove my professional commitment to them above and beyond job performance.
Fortunately I received my CA when I did, because when our new library director came aboard, she did not recognize me as a “professional” because I lack the ever holy ALA-accredited MLS. She actually informed my librarian colleagues that I could not represent the library on Shared Governance and she told me to my face that I could not apply for promotion.
I successfully argued that the CA designation represented a “terminal degree” for practicing, non-teaching, archivists in our academic library. I then served on the By-Laws for Appointment and Promotion committee to re-write our standards to include that entry-level archivists will achieve the CA designation before applying for promotion to Associate or Full level. (continued...)
I have known two CA's professionally, or at least two I know of. One was competent, if not the brightest bulb in the pack, and the other was so negligent and incompetent that I wish there were a criminal offense s/he could be charged with. This person is still a CA, and is still being hired for archivist positions based at least, I presume, on that credential.
This is why I will never support the CA program, and have no intention of pursuing the designation myself. If I am ever asked by a potential employer why I do not have the certification (and I have never been asked), I will not hesitate to state that, unfortunately, I do not believe that the CA designation in any way indicates competence as an archivist, and I will go on to explain how my education, experience and glowing references do indicate that about me.
The CA is meaningless and worthless, in my less-than-humble opinion. One does not demonstrate knowledge and competent professional judgment through a multiple choice test. A master's degree (I don't want to debate MA vs. MLIS here, but suffice to say that in either case, the degree should involve significant archival coursework) is a better indicator of what knowledge an individual has likely acquired, presumably a greater depth of knowledge than would be achieved otherwise.
If employers require the CA, I generally assume it is because they don't know any better way to judge a person's abilities and have no professional archivists already employed by the organization that could more properly assess one's knowledge and skills. Alternatively, it may be a way for an archival services "outsourcing" company to demonstrate to its clients the knowledge and skills of its employees - again, figuring that their clients don't know any better. Sounds much better to say one employs CAs rather than saying one employs recent college graduates who have some on-the-job experience with organizing and inventorying archival records.
In any case, as a credential and as a couple of letters to stick behind one's name, I find the CA completely worthless. The reality is that everyone has a unique path to knowledge, but the CA does not accurately reflect what knowledge a person may have. It only reflects that some books and articles were read, some studying done, and a multiple choice test taken and passed. Worthless.
In an interview, phone or in person, I can determine in half an hour, even without knowing the person's credentials, whether they possess the skills and knowledge I require for whatever position I may need to fill. I have interviewed a great many people for a variety of positions over the past decade, and I have yet to be disappointed by my choices.
So, if you want to get the CA to make yourself as marketable to as wide an audience as possible, then by all means do it. But don't expect that all potential employers will give the CA the same weight in their hiring decisions. Some of us just don't care and see it as a relatively meaningless piece of paper.
The test was so incredibly easy that I think it cheapens the whole certification. I did not study for the exam. At all. I got the certification because it's a popular thing to do in this region and I didn't want my not having the CA to be held against me next time I apply for a job.
I'm still angry with myself for doing it, though; I got my MLS from a top school and the two years of grad school were a thousand times more difficult than that exam. I hate to even admit to my grad school friends that I got certified; it suggests that I didn't think our degree was good enough.
As far as motivating me to contribute to the profession -- I'm intrinsically motivated to do that, and hope that anyone whose SAA session or professional organization meeting I'm attending feels the same way.
Post a Comment